Smalley vs. Subaru of America, Inc.

Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 10, 2017

LI P: Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p ou le B 19 80 0 Ma cA rt hu r va rd , Su it e 65 0 Ir vi ne , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 6 1 2 ( 9 4 9 ) 2 9 3 - 7 6 8 9 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ryan P. Ruggerello (#216633) Kristan L. Ruggerello (#216641) RUGGERELLO LAW GROUP L.L.P. 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 650 ELECTHONICALE Y FILED Irvine, California 92612 Pe Court of Orange Telephone: (949) 293-7689 Ryan @RuggerelloLaw.com O7THM3/201T at 01:06:00 Pi Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant, Subaru of America, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE — CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER MICHAEL SMALLEY, an individual, CASE NO. 30-2017-00901612-CU-BC-CJC Plaintiff, JUDGE: Hon. Frederick Horn DEPT.: C31 VS. Subaru of America, Inc.’s Opposition to SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and Plaintiff Michael Smalley’s Motion to DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Defendants. One; Declaration of Ryan P. Ruggerello [Filed Concurrently with Opposition to Separate Statement] Hearing: Date: July 26, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: C31 DATE OF FILING: July 19, 2016 TRIAL DATE: May 11, 2018 Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. (“SOA”) opposes Plaintiff Michael Smalley’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. 1 1 1 Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LI P: 1 9 8 0 0 M a c A r t h u r B o u l e v a r d , Su it e 65 0 Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p Ir vi ne , Ca li fo rn ia 92 61 2 (9 49 )2 93 .7 68 9 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This is a lemon law case involving a 2014 Forester purchased on May 18, 2013. Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of breach of warranty claims under California’s Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for an alleged “oil consumption defect.” So far in discovery, Smalley has propounded 162 interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production, including subparts. Specifically, the Requests for Production at issue here contained 72 requests. Not only is that a burdensome number of requests for any case, but it is especially glaring in a simple lemon law action involving only one alleged defect in plaintiffs 2014 Forester, excessive oil consumption. In addition to propounding this excessive amount of discovery, plaintiff persisted with lengthy form meet and confer letters that refer to “Acadias,” a vehicle manufactured by General Motors. Plaintiff then filed the instant form motion to compel that contains references to vehicles other than the Forester, Subaru Outbacks (Mtn. at p. 2, lines 16- 19)], and defects that are not at issue in this case and do not pertain to the alleged excessive oil consumption, e.g., seat defects (Mtn. at p. 1, line 21, p. 9, line 4) and brake defects (Mtn. at p. 2, line 21). These issues have nothing to do with the Plaintiff, the alleged excessive oil consumption or the subject Forester. As indicated in Mr. Gi’s declaration, that supports the plaintiff’s motion to compel, SOA has already produced the (1) Dealer Vehicle Inquiry, (2) Vehicle Coverage Inquiry, and (3)Vehicle Claim History Report, which shows the warranty history for the subject vehicle. Further, and as conceded by Mr. Gi, Subaru has produced Service Request Report 1-14448567481 and Service Request Report 1-16077017344, which document among other things, the customer’s pre-litigation complaints to Subaru and its response. Further, Subaru already produced Service Bulletin Number 02-157-14R, which addresses the issue of “Engine Oil Consumption.” Subaru contends that the plaintiff did not have a defect in his vehicle, which is why it objected to the phrase “oil consumption defect,” but 9 Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LI P: 1 9 8 0 0 M a c A r t h u r B o u l e v a r d , Su it e 65 0 Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p Ir vi ne , Ca li fo rn ia 92 61 2 (9 49 )2 93 .7 68 9 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 it has nonetheless already produced the applicable documents that apply to the subject vehicle, the plaintiff, and the allegation that his vehicle exhibited excessive oil consumption. Accordingly, there are no further documents to compel and the Court should deny Plaintiffs motion to compel. IL. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The plaintiff’s complaint. On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed his lemon law Complaint for violations of Song- Beverly regarding the subject 2014 Subaru Forester. According to his Complaint, Plaintiff’s claims arise from unspecified “defects relating to excessive oil consumption” in the subject Forester. B. The Discovery at issue. So far, in this simple lemon law case, plaintiff has propounded 162 discovery questions on Subaru, including 72 requests for production. (Ruggerello Decl. at | 2.) SOA diligently and completely responded to Plaintiff’s discovery as it pertains to the subject vehicle and the alleged defect in this case. (Ruggerello Decl. at | 3.) Plaintiff then attempted to meet and confer with SOA regarding a multitude of requests. After several rounds of meeting and conferring, the parties were unable to reach an agreement before the plaintiff decided to file a motion to compel. (Ruggerello Decl. at 4.) IIL. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. SOA’s objections are valid. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210, the responding party, within 30 days, must serve a written response to the demand that separately responds to each category of documents or other things the demand seeks with (1) a statement the responding party will comply with the particular demand; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular demand. “Courts have concluded that the Legislature requires objections in the 5 Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LL . 19 80 0 Ma cA rt hu r Bo Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p va rd , Su it e 65 0 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 initial response to written interrogatories to avoid waiver of privilege. (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273 (holding that litigant who failed to include an express objection upon attorney-client privilege in its initial written discovery responses resulted in a waiver of the privilege).) “[A] responding party preserves its objections based on the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine by serving a timely written response asserting those objections. It is irrelevant that the objections are asserted as part of a generic or boilerplate response, or that the responding party failed to serve a timely and proper privilege log.” (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Super. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal. App.4th 1116, 1129.) SOA substantively responded to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production and also preserved its objections that were tailored to each of the Plaintiff’s Requests. The reason that many of the objections were similar is because Plaintiff insisted on requesting countless documents from the same categories of documents that do not pertain to this litigation. As Plaintiff himself concedes, all 17 Requests that are the subject of this Motion fall into two categories — (1) SOA’s internal investigation and analysis of the alleged oil consumption defect and (2) SOA’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices. (Mtn. at p. 8, lines 22-25.) It would make sense, then, that many of the responses would also be duplicative according to those categories. This does not, however, as Plaintiff argues, show a lack of good faith. SOA, by way of its counsel, was preserving its proper objections. If it had not done so, they would have been waived. B. SOA responded appropriately and identified documents in response to plaintiff’s requests. Plaintiff argues that SOA did not provide code-complaint responses and seeks, by way of the present Motion, to have SOA clarify its responses to Requests that “it does not have documents responsive and applicable to this request” to “(1) Defendant performed a diligent search and reasonable inquiry regarding these documents and (2) Defendant is not in possession of any responsive documents because they do not exist.” (Mtn. at p. 5, lines 23-26.) SOA confirmed on no less than two occasions during meet and confer efforts 4 Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LI P: 1 9 8 0 0 M a c A r t h u r B o u l e v a r d , Su it e 65 0 Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p Ir vi ne , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 6 1 2 (9 49 )2 93 -7 68 9 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regarding this discovery that it does not have documents responsive and applicable to the Requests. Yet, Plaintiff persisted. Plaintiff persisted so much that he has now filed this Motion to ask the Court to confirm, yet again, that SOA does not have responsive documents. Just because Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the responses SOA provided does not entitle Plaintiff to additional discovery. 1) Request No. 7 The Request seeks SOA’s warranty Policy and Procedure Manual and SOA responded in its initial response and confirmed again on at least two occasions that it would produce Chapter 7 (Consumer Protection Laws) of Subaru’s Policies and Procedures Manual once an appropriate protective order was entered in the case. The parties have yet to agree to an appropriate order, so one has not been entered yet in this case. This does not mean that SOA is being evasive or has failed to comply with the discovery requests. It has already identified the responsive document and will produce it to Plaintiff once a protective order is in place. i1) Request Nos. 17-18, 20, and 22-25 In response to these Requests, SOA substantively responded that “it does not have documents responsive and applicable to this request and the subject vehicle.” For example, Request for Production No. 25 seeks Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (“FMEA”) reports, but SOA does not design or manufacture Subaru vehicles, and therefore it does not conduct/draft FMEAs. SOA has appropriately responded, produced documents and asserted applicable and pertinent objections. Yet, Plaintiff still persists. As indicated, in Mr. Gi’s declaration, that supports the plaintiff’s motion to compel, SOA has produced the (1) Dealer Vehicle Inquiry, (2) Vehicle Coverage Inquiry, and (3)Vehicle Claim History Report, which shows the warranty history for the subject vehicle. Further, and as conceded by Mr. Gi, Subaru has produced Service Request Report 1-14448567481 and Service Request Report 1-16077017344, which document among other things, the customer’s complaints to Subaru and its response. Further, Subaru already produced Service Bulletin Number 02-157-14R, which addresses the issue _5.- Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LL . 19 80 0 Ma cA rt hu r Bo Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p va rd , Su it e 65 0 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of “Engine Oil Consumption.” Subaru contends that the plaintiff did not have a defect in his vehicle, which is why it objected to the phrase “oil consumption defect,” but it has nonetheless in other similar requests for production already produced the applicable documents that apply to the subject vehicle, the plaintiff, and the allegation that his vehicle exhibited excessive oil consumption. Accordingly, there are no further documents to compel. iii) Request No. 42 In response to this Request, SOA substantively responded and referred “to the previously produced documents and the documents identified and produced in response to these Requests for Production.” Simply because Plaintiff does not like the response does not mean that there are responsive documents. iv) Request Nos. 44-45 These Requests seek documents that SOA reviewed and made in connection with Plaintiff’s repurchase request. To both of them, SOA provided a substantive response indicating that it would “produce the Vehicle Claim History Report, Dealer Vehicle Inquiry, Vehicle Coverage Inquiry, and Service Request Report for the subject vehicle, and identifies the service records from Renick Subaru for the subject vehicle.” Again, SOA responded and produced those documents that it reviewed and prepared in connection with Plaintiff’s repurchase request. v) Request Nos. 47-49, 62 These Requests are not limited in any way to Plaintiff, his claims in this case, the subject vehicle (or even similar vehicles). Despite this, SOA responded to Request Nos. 47-49 “that it evaluates each matter on a case-by-case basis, and refers to the Vehicle Claim History Report, Dealer Vehicle Inquiry, Vehicle Coverage Inquiry, and Service Request Report for the subject vehicle, and identifies the sales and service records from Renick Subaru for the subject vehicle. SOA also refers plaintiff to the 2014 Warranty and Maintenance Booklet and the Owner’s Manual.” Yet again, SOA identified and produced those documents relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, but Plaintiff seeks something beyond the -6- Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One L L P . 1 9 8 0 0 M a c A r t h u r B o u l e v a r d , Su it e 65 0 Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 claims and facts of his case. C. While the scope of discovery is broad, it must still be tailored to the subject matter of the case. “[Alny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Under Song Beverly, Plaintiff has “the burden to prove that (1) the vehicle had a nonconformity covered by the express warranty that substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the vehicle (the nonconformity element); (2) the vehicle was presented to an authorized representative of the manufacturer of the vehicle for repair (the presentation element); and (3) the manufacturer or his representative did not repair the nonconformity after a reasonable number of repair attempts (the failure to repair element).” (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101.) Plaintiff has the burden to prove the elements as they relate to his vehicle. Plaintiff seeks discovery regarding SOA’s internal investigations and policies and procedures that may be relevant to how SOA handles repairs generally, but that does mean they are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff must prove that there was a defect in his vehicle that he presented to SOA that was unable to be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. It does not matter what happens generally at SOA regarding repairs, what matters is what happened regarding Plaintiff’s vehicle. D. Plaintiff’s requests regarding SOA’s internal investigations and analysis of any alleged oil consumption defect are not appropriately tailored to plaintiffs claims or vehicle. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to SOA’s internal investigations and analysis of any alleged oil consumption defect in all vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as Plaintiff’s. However, Plaintiff did not limit his Requests to the subject vehicle or even similar vehicles. Again, given the breadth of discovery, only documentation relevant to the subject matter of the action, or likely to lead to admissible evidence, is discoverable. Plaintiff argues that this category of documents will lead to discovery of materials -7- Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LI P: 1 9 8 0 0 M a c A r t h u r B o u l e v a r d , Su it e 65 0 Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regarding oil consumption defects, SOA’s awareness of the defects, and SOA’s inability to repair the defects. (Mtn. at pp. 8-9.) However, this really does not matter and is not relevant here. What matters, is whether these documents will lead to the discovery of materials regarding whether Plaintiff’s vehicle had an oil consumption defect and whether it was presented to and repaired by SOA. Documents pertaining to those issues have already been produced. Further, Plaintiff claims that these documents include information about the seat defect that Plaintiff’s expert will need to rely on in order to render opinions. (Mtn. at p. 9, lines 3-5.) However, there is no allegation in the Complaint regarding seat defects and there are no Requests for Production regarding seat defects. The cases relied on by Plaintiff do not change the fact that his Requests are not narrowly tailored to his claims, the subject vehicle, and what he needs to prove in this case. The ruling in Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App.4th 967 does not require that SOA produce all documents that Plaintiff seeks here. The issues addressed by the Court in Doppes were whether the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding terminating sanctions against Bentley for its ongoing discovery violations and disregard for court orders. In fact, the issue regarding the discoverability of these documents was not even discussed in Doppes since that was not the issue or the focus. The documents requested in Doppes were to be produced at deposition for the person most qualified from Bentley. (Id. at 973-974.) Bentley failed to produce the requested documents and then continuously failed to produce them despite numerous orders. There was no discussion at all by the Court as to the reasoning or validity of the production of the documents at issue; the holding was that terminating sanctions were appropriate because Bentley “had failed to comply with discovery orders and directives and Bentley’s misuse of the discovery process was even worse than previously known.” (Id. at 996.) Here, SOA has not disregarded a Court order or misused the discovery process. Further, Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, does not stand for the proposition that Subaru must produce all documents for vehicles other than the Plaintiff’s. The issue in Donlen was whether the court abused its discretion when it _8. Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LI P: 1 9 8 0 0 M a c A r t h u r B o u l e v a r d , Su it e 65 0 Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p Ir vi ne , Ca li fo rn ia 92 61 2 (9 49 )2 93 .7 68 9 ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 denied Ford’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of other vehicles. The Court held that the motion in limine was properly denied and not unduly prejudicial because it was limited to the same transmission model as in plaintiff’s truck. (Id. at 154.) All of the testimony that the expert offered about other vehicles specifically applied to the plaintiff’s vehicle. (Id.) Here, unlike in Donlen, Plaintiff’s Requests are not limited at all to the alleged oil consumption in the plaintiff’s vehicle. Instead, many of them seek documents that Subaru is not obligated to produce and that would not be admissible at trial. Further, Request Numbers 22, and 69-70 are not limited to 2014 Subaru Foresters. Number 22 limitlessly seeks any document in SOA’s possession related to any complaint or claim regarding any alleged oil consumption defect, with no limit as to any specific vehicle or year. That is just absurd and SOA stands by its warranted and justifiable objections. Further, Request Numbers 69 and 70 ask for all documents produced in completely unrelated litigation. SOA referred Plaintiff to a website regarding the class action settlement agreement for those cases, but it is unclear how any of the arguments or case law cited by Plaintiff would entitle him to this completely irrelevant discovery. E. Plaintiff’s requests regarding SOA’s warranty and vehicle repurchase policies, procedures, and practices are not appropriately tailored to plaintiff’s claims or vehicle. Plaintiff claims that this category of documents is relevant to Song Beverly’s civil penalty provisions because it will show whether SOA has complied in good faith with its duties under Song Beverly. (Mtn. at p. 9, lines 12-15.) “[A] violation is not willful if the defendant's failure to replace or refund was the result of a good faith and reasonable belief the facts imposing the statutory obligation were not present. This might be the case, for example, if the manufacturer reasonably believed the product did conform to the warranty, or a reasonable number of repair attempts had not been made, or the buyer desired further repair rather than replacement or refund.” (Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 185.) This is consistent with “the general policy against _9. Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LL P. Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p 92 61 2 o u l e v a r d , Su it e 65 0 (9 49 )2 93 -7 68 9 ur B Ca li fo rn ia 19 80 0 Ma cA rt h Ir vi ne ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 imposing forfeitures or penalties against parties for their good faith, reasonable actions.” Id.) While evidence regarding a corporation’s policies and procedures may be pertinent to the question of willfulness under Song Beverly’s civil penalty provisions (Oregel, supra, 90 Cal. App.4th at 1105), they must still be relevant to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s complaint. Further, it is unclear how the evidence at issue in Oregel was admitted — whether by documentary evidence or testimony. Therefore, it does not stand for the proposition that these documents are discoverable, but only that the jury may rely on them in assessing civil penalties. (Id.) Here, the majority of Plaintiff’s Requests regarding how SOA handles “lemon law requests” are not limited to the subject vehicle, Plaintiff, or even his claims in this case. SOA did refer to and produce documents relevant to these Requests. Despite this, Plaintiff is still trying to search for documents in an effort to try to recover unwarranted civil penalties under Song Beverly. This should not be allowed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. Iv. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Dated: July 13, 2017 RUGGERELLO LAW GROUP L.L.P. By (JAY Ryan P. Ruggerello Attorneys for Defendant, Subaru of America, Inc. - 10 - Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LL P. 1 9 8 0 0 M a c A r t h u r B o u l e v a r d , Su it e 65 0 Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF RYAN P. RUGGERELLO I, Ryan P. Ruggerello, declare: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of California and am an attorney in the law firm of the Ruggerello Law Group L.L.P., counsel for Defendant, Subaru of America, Inc. in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below, and unless otherwise stated, I am competent to testify to them. Zs By my calculation, the plaintiff served 162 discovery questions on Subaru, which consist of 37 special interrogatories, including subparts (which are not permitted and for which no declaration for additional discovery was attached), 33 form interrogatories, including subparts, 20 requests for admissions, and 72 requests for production. 3. Despite the volume of discovery, my client responded to Plaintiffs discovery requests and produced and indentified, among other things, Subaru’s warranty documents for the subject vehicle and the plaintiff. 4. After receiving the responses, Plaintiff, by way of his counsel, then attempted to meet and confer regarding a multitude of requests. I received and sent multiple meet and confer e-mails and a letter regarding the discovery at issue in this Motion. Then, plaintiff filed the present motion to compel. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 13, 2017. Ryan’P. Ruggerello -11 - Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One LL P. 19 80 0 Ma cA rt hu r Bo ul e: Ru gg er el lo La w Gr ou p va rd , Su it e 65 0 9 2 6 1 2 (9 49 )2 93 .7 68 9 Ca li fo rn ia Ir vi ne ~ aN Wn + Ww Do 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the action; my address is 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 650, Irvine, California 92612. On July 13, 2017, I caused to be served, in the manner indicated below, the document described as Subaru of America, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff Michael Smalley’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Declaration of Ryan P. Ruggerello, addressed as follows: Benjemen R. Beck, Esq. Rodney Gi, Esq. Strategic Legal Practices, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff Telephone: (310) 929-4900 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 1840 Century Park East, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90067 BY REGULAR MAIL: I caused such envelopes to be deposited in the United States mail in California, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service each day and that practice was followed in the ordinary course of business for the service herein attested to (C.C.P. § 1013(a)). BY FACSIMILE: (C.C.P. § 1013(e)(f)). BY E-MAIL: I caused such document to be delivered by e-mail to Rodney Gi per counsel’s agreement to accept service by e-mail. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: 1 caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. § 1011(a)(b)). Ask sock sek skeok I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 13, 2017 in California. en 0 -12- Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One